Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
the same logistical force, the same command and control for two land works, iraq and south korea is no longer needing a land force from you in order to protect it, we could do it with air power, what's the new strategy? that's what's missing in in debate. a strategy and force capability metric, not one based on how many ships and aircraft when each can do so much more than before. >> let's go into the military aspect of it a little more. you talk about the difference between a cold war military and a 21st century military. the tactics are different and the nature of victory is different. are we prepared as a military, are we adjusted to the modern way of fighting, or are we not there dwryet? >> no, we're not there yet. for example, china to where the president has rightly shifted the focus in the western pacific, which is the center of gravity for america not just in tec terms of security but our economic interests. it has 80 submarines today. we have 50. do we want to procure another 30 at $2 billion a pop and try to have each submarine find each other like needles in a haystack
would be less than what it costs for the iraq war. it's about less than 1% of gdp. not a trivial amount by any means. the point is we paid for the iraq war. it didn't deb state economy. one could argue we should have had the war. the point is, it didn't devastate the economy. it's 25 years out. we didn't take 25 years to raise the money needed to fight the iraq war. people that badly misled about the size of the problem facing social security, it's relatively distant. and really not that large in the scheme of things. we don't typically plan 25 years in advance for something like that. >> let's look at medicare because this one gets framed as a more immediate crisis than social security. you hear right now the talking point, i get this from paul ryan and a lot of other republicans although i don't want to make this a democrat/republican thing and i certainly hear democrats and republicans making the same point all the time. the talking point i hear most frequently, right now it is on course to go bankrupt in 2024. we need to address it right now. that bankruptcy claim though again, ther
to exacerbate those concerns, this is a great time to do that to play up the fears. we've seen in iraq they respond to the video and threaten to target u.s. attorneys. >> all right, thank you for helping us make sense of this. >>> the white house handling of all of this could make-or-break the re-election hopes. ed rendell joins the conversation as "the cycle" rolls on for thursday, september 13th. woman 1: this isn't just another election. we're voting for... the future of our medicare and social security. man 1: i want facts. straight talk. tell me your plan... and what it means for me. woman 2: i'm tired of the negative ads and political spin. that won't help me decide. man 2: i earned my medicare and social security. and i deserve some answers. anncr: where do the candidates stand on issues that... affect seniors today and in the future? find out with the aarp voters' guide at to compete on the global stage. what we need are people prepared for the careers of our new economy. by 2025 we could have 20 million jobs without enough college graduates to fill them. that'
the question, yes, we are better off, bin laden is dead, detroit is alive, getting out of iraq, what's the problem, but yesterday it seems like crimi l criminal. i'm like what are you talking about, you are not helping, are you a secret agent? >> seemed like they couldn't coordinate either. >> totally not expecting it, which is weird. >> there are four answers to the obvious question. you were a candidate, don't your surrogates know this question is coming and we coordinate how to answer this very obvious question, which is central to the question of the election? >> well, i think that is the part that is unforgivable, not anticipating it and having an answer ready to go that everybody knows, but in fairness, i do think it's a tough question to answer. if you look at the metrics, four years ago we were in free fall. the economy was a disaster, people were terrified. no question looking at the metrics things are better, but people don't feel like things are better, so the answer is, yes, but you don't want to give that answer and feel like you're out of touch. and to that point, you
to answer. i mean, i ran the edwards campaign. edwards said the vote for the iraq war was a mistake. that was probably a good thing for him to do. does that mean carte blanche? no. >> of course not, no. >> jonathan, quickly your former speech writer for president clinton, how do you rate his speech at the dnc among his all-time great speeches? >> i thought it was a terrific speech. it was a fantastic speech. i think he did a great job kind of laying out there the case for the obama presidency, and it set the stage for the president's speech the next night which as i said despite the instant reviews about the lack of loft, i think if you looked at the way public opinion moved in the days after really got a lot of work done. that's what i urge all the armchair pundits to do with the debates next week. not to look at the immediate reaction and all of us "squawk"ing on tv, but to see what the voters think about what the voters and romney says. >> any great stories from '96 debate prep with clinton? >> do i have any great stories? i think debrat prep is like vegas. what happens there sta
track in iraq and the war on terror in general. bush had to give a nod to those concerns while at the same time saying, look, i've made progress, i've kept things from being worse. and to say, if you stay the course with me, things will get better. there's this line in his speech that jumps out at me. when he said in 2004 that historic goals are within our reach and greatness is in our future. you can look back and say that didn't pan out too well. it worked with the electorate in 2004. i think it's similar to what obama has to deliver tonight. >> nick, what do you make to that comparison? >> it's very accurate, i think, steve. i could be wrong. i was saying he should lay out a positive vision for the future. george b. bush gave us some gauzy sentiments. maybe that's the same kind of campaign, a parallel campaign and message that will work tonight for barack obama. >> another parallel there. you have in barack obama a guy who is really truly loved by his party versus mitt romney, a guy who's liked by his party, but there's more motivation to get the other guy out. another paral
necessarily asked for? >> our involvement in the middle east long predates 9/11 or the invasion of iraq. it is a phenomenon of the post-world war ii era in which we have basically three interests. one, to ensure the free throw of oil out of the region. second, to help ensure israel's security. third, to make sure that no other country dominates the region, other than quite frankly the united states. those other issues that you mentioned are actually subordinate to those three long-standing core interests to the united states that administrations from both the republican and democratic party have pursued. >> wait. but why wouldn't then brazil also be interested in oil and aligning with israel and all of these other things that we seem to value? >> the brazilians have their own vast energy resources, but i think the point is that -- i think it's a good one. that countries like china and india and other rising global powers are not patrolling the waterways of the persian gulf. are not extending tremendous energy trying to resolve the israel/palestinian conflict. that is something that the
most of the shiites, the populations that are in bahrain, in syria, in lebanon, and in iraq itself following, looking towards iran. yes, the arab spring opened that debate about the role of iran and what's happening but are they relational? yes. they're very rational and you can talk to them. there's many players in the i ran yan political system. ahmadinejad will not be in office after june. we need to understand that. there's elections and somebody else might replace him. he's not as popular as we think. today, if you look at of how much he's hated in own country, after he oppressed his own people in 2009, the economy and this is what people look at. he really destroyed the economy by pushing the whole world, to put more sanction on him and on the iranian central bank and ruined the country. he is the worst pr for his people. >> rula, back to israel and the united states, president obama barely discussed israel in the speech at the u.n. he didn't meet with netanyahu. is that -- are those things that israelis listen to and pick up on or is that really just stuff we talk about here
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)